Posts made by cymerdown

This is my G1 in LL, no tech.

Buy
9inf 1art

CM
ukr <- bul: 3inf, pol: 1fig
epl <- pol: 2inf, bul: 1art 2arm
bst <- pol: 2inf 1art 2arm, chk: 2arm, ger: 1inf 1art
egy <- lib: 1inf 1art 1arm, mor: 1inf, fra: 1arm
sz2 <- sz7: 1ss, nwy: 1fig, ger: 1bmb
sz6 <- sz5: 1ca 1ss
sz12 <- sz7: 1ss, nwe: 1fig, ger: 1fig

Retreat egy if down to 1arm against more than 1fig.

NCM
fra <- sz12: 1fig, nwe: 1inf, ger: 2inf
mor <- sz12: 1fig
nwy <- sz2: 1fig 1bmb
blk <- ukr: 1fig

The idea is to make epl and bst unable to be countered, and to force a trade of Karelia with Russia for twoish turns.  This seems to buy Europe enough time to make it to turn 6 or 7 before Europe is really in crunch time.  Japan typically starts an Arctic Express around turn 3 against your usual KGF.  Any other recommendations, and why?

EDIT: Grammar mistake.

Looks like nobody is really interested in this.  Maybe I’ll state my goals with this setup, which might give people a reason to try it out:

1. Make Japan go a little bit slower in Asia, even in KGF.  This is done by making China a bit more resilient (and this also makes China a little bit more fun to play as).
2. Make Italy a bit more powerful, to be a more viable independent country (though 5 more IPC/turn is still not going to turn them into a major power or anything).
3. Balance Italy’s increased income with a bit more income for Russia early in the game.  This makes them closer to an equivalent to Germany in power, so Italy will have to cooperate with Germany closely to beat back Russia.
4. Give the UK a chance at keeping one of their NOs for a few turns, at least.  This gives the Allies a few more turns of vital UK IPCs in a KGF game, which I believe the Allies need.
5. Give UK a more viable option of going partly or fully Pacific, and in doing so, try to make KJF and global strategies nearly or just as viable as KGF.
6. Make India and Australia more defensible to an early Japan blitz, if the Allies wish to hold on to them.

Note that these measures will slow Japan down, but the Allies will also be slowed if they go KGF since Italy’s fleet is a touch stronger.  It ends up that the game is about 2 turns or so longer in my experience.

So, I think the changes do help the balance and playability of the game substantially while not changing the game -so- much as to be unrecognizable.  I know people are going to say, “Bids fix the balance, you don’t need all this.”  But bids don’t do everything that I tried to do above, either.

If you playtest it, let me know what your results were and I’ll use that information to tweak it, if necessary.

I disagree.  After much analysis, I would argue that Japan can, and should, be left unchallenged in the Pacific in AA50 '41.  Just like most previous versions of the game, and much to my chagrin, AA50 '41 is a race to Berlin and Moscow, when played optimally.

Thanks. =)  Yep, true, it would chase them away if they didn’t have a DD in range.  I think that in some situations they can be usable tactically, I just don’t think they’re a valid en-masse type of unit in Anniversary.  But that’s an opinion that has been voiced by many other people in many other threads on this forum, so I’ll digress. =)

I’ll be interested to see if AA40 has a rule for sub sabotage with convoy squares, that would bring back more relevance to the sub.

If Germany goes all armor, the Allies should be going for a very aggressive navy build in the Atlantic.  An Allies player that really pushes the pace can be making substantial threats on France and Germany by turn 3.  Even if Germany turtles on G3 and builds all defense, they will likely still lose France at the very least with such an aggressive build.  With Russia, you just need to play a little cautious.  I would recommend going defensive with your builds, and abandoning Karelia, pulling those units back to Archangel.  Even if you have to stack Moscow on R2 and leave Caucasus open, there’s no way that Germany can take Moscow on G3.  Once Germany starts having to play defense in France and Germany, Russia can start building tanks to push the unreinforced German line west.  It’s the beginning of the end for the Axis in Europe.

My advice is this: make careful use of deadzoning tactics to slow down the Allied advance as long as possible.  Until their combined navy’s defensive strength surpasses your offensive strength, they dare not move within range.  And this definitely takes a while to accomplish, as long as your maintaining the arms race while maintaining a minimum shuck of 4 land units/turn to keep Asia in check.  One example is splitting your fleet between SZ62 and SZ36 once the Allies start to press in.  From there, you protect your FIC shuck, which allows you to keep India restrained, and you also will deadzone most of the seazones close to Japan.  There are many methods of slowing down the Allies, like DD blocking, that was just one example.  With any luck, you’ll hold out long enough for G&I to take Moscow.

Well, right, but Japan goes first, and takes Phillippines on J1, which is a fairly standard opening move.  With my J1, I end the turn with 1 CV in SZ37, 1 CV in the Okinawa SZ, and 1 CV in the Japan SZ.  UK and US have 2 DD, 1 CV, 2 FIG, and 1 TRN left between them after the J1 massacre to bring to Solomon, and I have as many as 8 FIG (with the J1 I use, there are 2 sitting on FIC that can make it also, because I can dictate that the Okinawa CV will catch them in the Solomon Islands SZ, and the FIGs on the Okinawa CV can land in Caroline).

Just don’t forget that any surface ships 3 spaces away from CVs can be hit.  Those 8 fighters in range make the Solomon Islands deadzone for the Allies on turn 1, which is part of the reasoning behind that careful J1 Carrier positioning.  It takes a good while before the Allies can make substantial progress in the Pacific, which is why KJF doesn’t really work in '41 - it’s a bit too slow.

Nah, if you have 2 CVs and 4 FIG in the Hawaiian SZ on A1, I’m attacking them.  4 FIGs, 2 BMB, a CV and a DD can make it.  A crushing loss for the IJN to take so early in the game, regardless of losses taken by the US, which can be easily rebuilt.

Nah, Japan is just too unstoppable in '41.  Even if you pull all the possible resources you can summon, like India & Australia ICs, pulling the US fighters, Russian INF and ARM from Caucasus, all you can do is slow Japan down… by the time you can make any headway against a good opponent, Moscow is about to fall.  It just can’t realistically be done without huge help from the dice.

As for the OP, I’m not sure what a Brazil IC would accomplish that a SA IC wouldn’t… if I was going to make a stand in Africa I would either do it that way, or more likely building Atlantic fleets.  I don’t find AA to be a slow enough game (turns-wise :P) for something like a Brazil IC to exist.

DD block the subs and have the fleet behind it.  Subs gotta run away, and whatever attacks the DD gets killed.  Also, the subs have to run more than 1 square farther away if the fleet has fighters in it.

x . .
. D .
. . s

You can’t move anything to Solomon Islands with the allies on turn 1… Japan has the fleet at Philippines and 6 Fighters in range, that’s deadzone there buddy.

Here is my attempt to make the '41 w/NO, no tech scenario more balanced (from playtesting, it seems close to no bid), and increase the viability of non-KGF strategies.  There are a small number of rule changes, and a small number of additional units placed in the starting setup.

Germany
Add 2 Infantry to Czechoslovakia.

Russia
Add 1 Infantry to Urals.
Change the 2nd NO to give 5 IPC instead of 10 IPC.
Add the following NO: “Gain 5 IPC if the Allied powers control four of the following five territories: Belorussia, Eastern Ukraine, Kazakh SSR, Novosibirsk, Urals.”

Japan
No changes.

UK
Add 1 Infantry to New Zealand.
Add 1 Infantry to Solomon Islands.
Add 1 Infantry to New Guinea.
Add 1 Carrier, 1 Fighter to SZ43.
On the first turn only, all ICs that the UK buys cost 8 IPC and may be placed at the beginning of the turn, in which case they may be used to produce new units at the end of the turn.  On all following turns, the UK follows the normal rules for buying and placing ICs.
Change the 3rd NO to read: “Gain 5 IPCs if the Allied powers control all of the following territories: Eastern Canada, Western Canada, India, Australia, and Union of South Africa.”

Italy
Add 1 Artillery to Libya.
Add 1 Destroyer to SZ14.
Add the following NO: “Gain 5 IPC when the Axis powers control two of the following three territories: Balkans, Czechoslovakia/Hungary, Bulgaria/Romania.”

US
No changes.

China
Change the initial setup entirely, so that instead there is exactly 1 Infantry on each Chinese territory, and the Flying Tigers start in Sikang.
Change the formula for determining the number of new Chinese Infantry created each turn to the following: 1 Infantry per territory, up to a maximum of 3 Infantry are generated each turn.

That’s it.  If you decide to try it, let me know what you think. =)

So, the big question that makes this whole discussion moot is: What does building navy in the Baltic actually -do-?  What is the goal of building it?

1. It ferries a few additional troops to Karelia faster.
Ok, but taking and holding the Karelia factory accomplishes the same purpose without wasting IPCs on building navy.  In any case, the land units you build in Germany will get to the eastern front eventually, whether by walking there or taking a transport.  Does a few of them getting there slightly faster until the navy dies accomplish that much (i.e., is there a quick attack that kills Russia very fast where you need those few extra troops in the east a couple of turns earlier)?  Nah.  The game designers were smart enough to make sure there’s no cute tactics like that which Germany can pull - it takes at least 6 turns or so to really take Moscow against any sort of decent Russian player, and the Baltic fleet should be dead long before then if you don’t play the naval arms war with England more than a carrier or two.

2. It threatens the UK with invasion.
There is no way that Germany can build enough of a navy to compete with the UK -and- hold the east against Russia.  It’s just not possible with the IPCs that Germany has access to in the beginning of the game.  So, one or the other will have to go.  Besides, the UK can easily build enough land units to prevent Germany from ever really taking the UK.  US can come with assist if it’s ever needed, but it won’t.  So this threat is empty in that it doesn’t gain any territories for Germany, and they’ll be losing territories to Russia while sitting around building this empty threat.

3. It makes the UK focus on fleet for an extra turn or two instead of prepping invasion of France or Scandinavia.
Ok, but it also makes Germany focus on building ships instead of land/air units, like they should be.  So this is a trade-off, and one that Axis can’t really afford to make IMO.  UK will eventually crush the Baltic fleet, and by crush I mean not a fair battle.  Axis will lose on the IPC trade and UK should be left with a fleet that is unassailable, and -then- they can start the invasion prep.  Also, by building ships, Germany is going to start losing instead of gaining land IPCs to Russia as they begin losing the land arms race since they are preoccupied with ship building.

So, I think we’re left with admitting that building ships as Germany has no real goal to it, and therefore, it’s a bad move.  Whether it’s a lone carrier, or something more substantive, those Baltic ships that Germany builds will either sit there useless, or get destroyed, and you’ll wish you had spent those IPCs on something else, like maybe inf/arm/fig/bmb.

@Upside-down_Turtle:

Seriously, though, if you’re going to take either Italy of France, don’t be silly enough to do it if you can’t hold either one.

Really, the norther rout via Norway and Finland (tee hee, Finway :lol:) is the best rout.

Assuming NOs, I disagree.  Taking France for just one turn grants UK an additional 11 IPC and, if Italy doesn’t retake it, an additional 5 IPC for the US.  This helps the UK a lot, since the UK can then use that additional money to build more land units, threatening the same or a different invasion again on the following turn, etc.  Also, Germany and/or Italy is going to have to retake France, thus depriving either the eastern front or Africa of those units.  If the UK/US can force Germany to keep most of its new builds at home for a few turns, the Allies have basically won the game if Japan isn’t huge yet, since the Red Army will just steamroll west if left to their own devices, including Finland/Norway.  In fact, just the presence of a large number of protected transports in the Atlantic is enough to start slowing the German advance since they have to start spreading themselves thin defending everything - they dare not let the Allies into France, even for a turn, unless they have to.  Once they start trading France, that’s usually the beginning of the end for Germany.

@Frontovik:

i like KJF in '42
cause in 41, you can’t build IC on east-indies with US

not sure what this means, you can’t build a US IC in EI in 42’ either… UK is the original owner of EI in both scenarios, it just starts with a Japanese control marker in 42’

@mpc220:

on G1, you HAVE to build to the Baltic fleet if you want to have any chance of keeping it, and you need to buy at least a carrier.

Who says you need to keep it?

@Upside-down_Turtle:

I feel a German fleet should build under the following conditions:

1. Extensive damage done to the UK Atlantic fleet on G1 and/or G2. 
2. Taking Korellia on G1.  This allows you build up to 3 ships per tern and still be able to commit at least 10 inf to Russia per tern v their 8.
3. NOs are being used.  Extra income is essential. 
4. Not a KGF game.  If UK and US are pimping out their Atlantic Fleets, they will overwhelm you, making a fleet a very bad long term investment, @ the least.

4. Germany doesn’t know if it’s going to be a KGF game until after G1.  After G1, the Baltic fleet is dead anyway.  German fleet build is for Sealion or Sealion threat only

They can try to attack 2 INF, 2 ART, 4 ARM, but it’s gonna be painful.  Yeah, I take Ukraine super-weak on purpose.  I play a “preserve attacking pieces above all else” type of style.

UK should have just 1 DD with normal odds with how I do G1.  And yeah, UK can build just a CV to survive their fleet, as long as they build in SZ 2 or 8.  I’d build a BB as well if I were them just to be safe, and then they’d have enough cash left for 1 TRN.

I think you need to go standard fleet, personally.  I would start with a BB, a CV, and an SS if it were me.